这一反驳基于这样一种观点：我们的宇宙并非唯一存在的宇宙，而是存在无限或不可计数的众多宇宙。如此庞大数量的宇宙，可以解释为何我们的宇宙如此精确、如此精妙地调校，而无需假定有一位有意志的造物主创造了我们的宇宙。换言之，在数量巨大的宇宙之中，必定有一个宇宙是完美地为我们而设定条件的。这就像彩票：某个人赢得亿万大奖的几率极低，但至少有一个人赢得大奖的几率却很高。为了进一步阐明他们的观点，他们举了这样一个例子：设想一名男子被押上刑场准备处决。当他被带到绞刑架前，在闭上眼睛之前，他看到一百名神枪手站在他面前，他们的步枪都瞄准了他。他闭上眼睛，接着听到了枪响。他屏住呼吸，以为自己即将死去，但他什么感觉也没有。他摸了摸自己的身体，发现自己没有被任何一颗子弹击中。这有可能是偶然发生的吗？要注意，这些神枪手都是专家，他们全部失手的可能性微乎其微。他开始想：“也许他们串通好了不杀我，或者有人贿赂他们全部失手，又或者还有其他原因。”蒙眼布被取下，他发现自己身处另外一百人之中，而被处决的人数本是101人。当然，在这种情况下，仍会有一人活着。这正是史蒂芬·霍金在他与伦纳德·蒙洛迪诺合著的《大设计》一书中提出的观点。书中写道：“自然法则中的精细调校，可以用多重宇宙的存在来解释。历史上许多人将自然界的美丽与复杂归因于上帝，而在他们的时代，这些现象似乎没有科学的解释。” 但正如达尔文和华莱士解释了生命形式看似奇迹般的设计如何能够在没有至高存在干预的情况下出现，多重宇宙的概念同样可以解释物理定律的精细调校，而无需一位为我们的利益而创造宇宙的仁慈造物主。[333] 这也正是道金斯在其著作《上帝的妄念》中回应有神论者“精细调校论证”时所依赖的核心观点。
This objection is based on the notion that our universe is not the only universe in existence, but there are rather an infinite or an immeasurable number of universes. This large number of universes would explain how our universe is precise and finely turned, without the need to assume there was a willing doer who created our universe. In other words, within the gargantuan number of universes, there is bound to be one which is conditioned perfectly for us. It is like the lottery: The chances of a person winning the billionaire prize is extremely low; however, the chance of at least one person winning is high. To clarify their view further, they offer this example: Imagine a man was presented for execution. When he was brought to the gallows, and before his eyes closed, he saw a hundred expert snipers in front of him, all of whom had trained their rifles on him. He shut his eyes, and then heard the sound of fire as the rifles were shot. He held his breath as he thought he was about to die, but he felt nothing. He felt his body and noticed he had not been impacted by even one bullet. Is it possible that this could have occurred by accident? Note that the snipers were experts, and it is highly unlikely they could have all missed. He started to think: ‘Perhaps they conspired not to kill me, or perhaps someone bribed them all to miss, or perhaps there was some other reason.’ The blindfold was removed from him. It turned out he was among a hundred other people, and the number of people to be executed were 101. Of course, in this case, one would still be alive. This is the view Stephen Hawking proposed in his book The Grand Design, which he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow. It reads: ‘The fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.’333 It is also the central idea that Dawkins relied upon in his book The God Delusion as he responded to the theists’ argument from fine-tuning.
多重宇宙理论实际上是多种模型的统称，这些模型在科学界都存在激烈争议。然而，目前各方一致认为，这些都只是定量层面的假设，就宇宙实际如何而言，并没有证据支持。这些模型如下：
The multiverse theory is in fact an umbrella term for various models, all of which are hotly contested in the scientific community. However, all agree for now that these are all merely quantitative assumptions that have no evidence in terms of how it is actually is. These models are as follows:
•振荡模型或循环模型
这一点在第一个理性论证中已有提及。该模型提出，宇宙先爆炸并膨胀到尽可能远的极限，然后坍缩（或称挤压塌陷），这一过程不断重复。每一次循环中，宇宙都具有不同的普适常数，这些数值可以在各自的循环中尝试创造生命——这一过程无休止地持续下去。由于这种情况可能发生的次数是无限的，有利于生命的理想数值最终必然会出现。
该模型存在若干问题。振荡本身的观念就难以接受，尤其是考虑到维伦金（Vilenkin）的观点，他断言从前永恒到无限的爆炸—坍缩过程不可能持续下去——宇宙必定有一个确定的开端，如前所述。即使假定该模型是准确的，它仍会与热力学第二定律相冲突，该定律指出熵只能增加。宇宙始于有序状态；随着膨胀，它会转向更高的熵。当宇宙坍缩时，它不会回到先前的同等有序程度，而是回到更低的有序程度。下一次爆炸发生时，有序程度会更低，这意味着生命的出现将更加不可能。事实上，如果按照振荡模型的推论，熵持续增加，宇宙将达到热力学平衡态——而这显然尚未发生。
•多世界诠释（MWI）的量子物理学
在量子力学中，这被称为量子叠加。例如，当一个电子自旋时，无法确定它朝哪个方向旋转。按照量子叠加原理，两种可能性都存在，除非我们开始进行非常细致的观察。只有经过更仔细的观测，我们才能确定它究竟朝哪个方向自旋。 这里的重点并不在于电子这一具体问题本身，而在于它与某种多重宇宙模型的关联。最先提出这一模型的是雨果·埃弗雷特（Hugh Everett）。他认为，在观测发生的那一刻，宇宙会一分为二：在一个宇宙中，电子朝一个方向自旋；在另一个宇宙中，电子则朝相反方向自旋。乍看之下，这一模型似乎无助于解释宇宙为何如此精细地调校。与之相比，多重宇宙理论提出存在无限多个宇宙，其中必有一个的条件被完美地设定以适宜生命存在。而埃弗雷特所设想的多重宇宙，尽管确实产生了多个宇宙，却仍受同一套规律和常数支配。因此，这一模型并不能真正为这个问题提供答案。
• The cyclic model or oscillating model This was touched upon earlier on in the first rational argument. It proposes that the universe explodes and expands to the farthest limit possible, then it collapses on itself (or crunches), and the process is repeated. In each iteration, the universe has different universal constants in which these numbers can experiment their attempts at creating life – a process that goes on and on. This is because the number of times this can happen is limitless, so the desired numbers that would be conducive to life would inevitably come. This model has a number of problems. The very idea of oscillation is not acceptable, especially in light of Vilenkin’s views that assert it is impossible for the explosion-crunch process to continue from pre-eternality into infinity – the universe must have a definite beginning, as discussed previously. Even if it is assumed that this model is accurate, it would run into problems with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy can only increase. The universe begins with order; as it expands, it would switch to greater entropy. When the universes crunches, it would not return to the same level of order that it previously had, but rather to a lesser degree of order. When the next explosion occurs there will be less order, meaning life would be even more improbable. In fact, if entropy was to continue to increase as per the implication of the oscillating model, the universe would reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium – something that has obviously not yet occurred. • The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics In quantum mechanics, this is what is known as quantum superposition. For example, as an electron spins, it cannot be determined in which direction it is spinning. As per quantum superposition, both are possible unless we start observing it very closely. It is only upon closer observation that we can ascertain which direction it is spinning in. The point here is not to discuss this specific issue of electrons as much as its connection to one of the proposed models for the creation of multiverses. Hugh Everett was the one who first proposed this model. He said that at the time of observation, the universe is divided into two: in one universe, the electron spins one way; in the other, the electron is spinning the other way. It would seem that this model has nothing to offer to the question of how the universe is so finely tuned. Whereas the multiverse theory proposes that there are an infinite number of universes and one of them must be conditioned perfectly for life, the multiverse in Everett’s suggestion – even though it does create multiple universes – is governed by the same set of rules and constants. Therefore, this model does not really offer any answer to the question.
• 暴胀模型 这一理论旨在解决传统大爆炸理论存在的问题,正如斯蒂芬·霍金所说:“暴胀解释了大爆炸中的那声‘爆炸’。”334 这一观点在现代科学家中赢得了一定的尊重,但它并非科学界的共识。简而言之,该理论假设在大爆炸之后不久,宇宙经历了一个快速膨胀的时期(暴胀),使其在极短的一瞬间从约10⁻²⁵米的初始尺度膨胀到10米长,此后宇宙的膨胀速度才变得较为缓慢。之后,才进入传统大爆炸模型所描述的膨胀阶段。换言之,宇宙在0.0000000000000000000000000000000001秒内膨胀了1035倍。为了让人理解这一过程有多快,霍金举了这样一个例子:“就好像一枚直径1厘米的硬币突然膨胀到了银河系宽度的一千万倍。”335 此后,这一想法得到进一步发展,人们补充认为,这一现象在宇宙的不同区域中无休止地重复发生;每发生一次,就会产生一组新的常数。这一模型以及对它的反对意见,已在讨论安德烈·林德的理论时提到过。在这里我们关注的是:尽管该模型提出了多元宇宙的概念,每个宇宙都拥有自己的物理常数,但在一些人看来,这一模型仍然无法提供足够数量的宇宙,从而难以解释为何会偶然诞生这样一个幸运的宇宙。
• 弦理论 该理论认为,一切形式的物质最终都由被称为“弦”的一维对象所取代。与零维的基本粒子不同,弦是一维的延展实体,其长度约为10⁻³³厘米。这些弦发生振动,并决定了物质的本质,即质子、光子、夸克等。 因为这些弦存在于多维空间中(三个空间维度加上时间),在某些模型中它们可达十维时空甚至更高维度。基于此,这些弦可能呈现的形态大约有一个巨大的10500种。每个模型都能以自己的方式创造一个宇宙,其中的弦会与其他宇宙不同。
•平行宇宙
这一理论由马克斯·泰格马克提出。它认为每一种可能性都在某个宇宙中真实存在。因此,掷一枚六面骰子时,就有六个宇宙,每个宇宙中分别出现一个数字。同样地,你能想到的任何可能性都会在无限多的平行宇宙中得到体现。在我看来,物理学家对待这些理论的严肃程度,似乎并不如电视和科幻电影中所呈现的那样。简而言之,可以说,多元宇宙的观念已成为许多无神论者面对精细调校论证以及这个宇宙被精妙而完美地创造这一事实时,所抓住的最后稻草。正如哲学家尼尔·曼森所说,它是"绝望的无神论者的最后手段"。336
• The inflation model This theory deals with the problems of the traditional Big Bang theory, or as Stephen Hawking put it: ‘Inflation explains the bang in the Big Bang.’334 This position has won some respect among the ranks of modern scientists, though it is not a matter of scientific agreement. In brief, it postulates that just after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion (inflation), so that it expanded in just a tiny fraction of a second from an initial mass of 10-25 to 10 metres long, after which the universe started to expand less expeditiously. After that, the traditional model of the Big Bang’s expansion took place. In other words, the universe expanded by a factor of 1035 in 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. To be able to comprehend how fast this was, Hawking gives the following example: ‘It was as if a coin 1 centimetre in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.’335 This idea was further developed later on, where it was added that this phenomenon endlessly repeats itself in various parts of the cosmos; every time it occurs, it produces a fresh list of constants. This model and the objections to it have been mentioned during the discussion on Andrei Linde’s theory. What concerns us here is that even though it theorises a multiverse, with each universe possessing its own physical constants, this model will fail – as some see it – to offer the required number of universes that would make it possible for it to create the accidental lucky universe. • String theory This theory states that all matter in all forms is ultimately replaced by one dimensional objects called strings, which are – unlike zero-dimensional elementary particles – one-dimensional extended entities with lengths of 10-33 cm. These strings vibrate, and determine the substance of things, namely protons, photons, quarks, etc. Because these strings are found in multi-dimensional spaces (the three spatial dimensions as well as time), they reach ten-dimensional spacetime or even more in some models. Based on this, the forms these strings can assume is approximately a huge 10500. Each model can make a universe in its own fashion, in which strings would be different to other universes. • Parallel universe This was proposed by Max Tegmark. It considers each probability to be in actual existence in any one universe. So when a six-faced dice is thrown, there are six universes with each number showing up in the six universes. In a similar fashion, any possibility you can think of would be represented in the number of infinite and parallel universes. It does not seem to me that physicists deal with these theories with the seriousness they are dealt with on television and in sci-fi movies. In brief, it can be said that the idea of the multiverse has become the last resort for many atheists to cling onto when they are confronted with the fine tuning argument and the fact that this universe has been masterfully and immaculately created. As the philosopher Neil Manson put it, it is ‘the last resort for the desperate atheist’.336
这可以依据以下几点来讨论：
This can be discussed in light of the following points:
1. 目前提出的所有这些数字，都只是物理学家的随意估计，并非基于任何实际的经验数据。事实上，这些估计无法对未来的科学作出任何预测。大多数提出此类主张的人也承认，没有物证表明存在不同于我们所处宇宙的另一个宇宙，更不用说无限或准无限多重宇宙的概念了。
1. Everything that has been mentioned is just random estimates from physicists. It is not based on any actual empirical data. In fact, these estimates are unable to offer any forecasts on future science. Most of those who make such claims admit that there is no material evidence that there is another universe different from the one we live in, let alone the concept of an infinite or quasi infinite multiverse.
尽管马丁·里斯更倾向于多重宇宙理论而非智能设计论，他承认多重宇宙理论仍只是一个未经证实的假说，而他的这种倾向仅仅基于直觉。337 事实上，理查德·道金斯在一条脚注中谈到多重宇宙理论为何是解释我们宇宙为何调校得如此精妙的合适途径，他自己说道："萨斯坎德对超级宇宙中人择原理作了出色的辩护。他说大多数物理学家都憎恶这一观点。我无法理解为什么。我认为它很美——或许是因为我的意识已被达尔文所提升。"338
Even though Martin Rees preferred the theory of the multiverse over intelligent design, he admitted that the multiverse theory is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and that his inclinations were merely based on instinct.337 In fact, in a footnote on how the multiverse theory is a suitable way to explain why our universe is well tuned, Richard Dawkins himself said, ‘Susskind gives a splendid advocacy of the anthropic principle in the megaverse. He says the idea is hated by most physicists. I can’t understand why. I think it is beautiful – perhaps because my consciousness has been raised by Darwin.’338
保罗·戴维斯明确指出，只有少数科学家支持多元宇宙理论，尽管这一群体正在壮大："少数科学家，但是一个日益壮大的群体，现在以这样或那样的形式支持多元宇宙理论。"339 在题为"许多科学家厌恶多元宇宙观念"的小节下，他写道："尽管如此，人们对多元宇宙观念的强烈反弹仍然十分激烈。一些杰出的科学家和评论者在谴责时使用了诸如幻想、病毒和理智破产等字眼。普林斯顿大学爱因斯坦教授保罗·斯坦哈特觉得整个概念令人十分反感，以至于干脆对它关上了思想之门，他宣称："这是一个危险的观念，我根本不愿意去思考它。""340
Paul Davies clearly states that only a minority of scientists – albeit a growing one – supports the multiverse theory: ‘A minority of scientists, but a growing one, now support the multiverse theory in one version or another.’339 Under the section heading ‘Many Scientists Hate the Multiverse Idea’, he said, ‘Nevertheless, the backlash against the multiverse idea has been fierce. Prominent scientists and commentators have used words such as fantasy, virus, and intellectually bankrupt in their denunciations. Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor at Princeton University, finds the entire concept so distasteful that he has simply closed his mind to it: “This is a dangerous idea that I am simply unwilling to contemplate”, he has declared.’340
多元宇宙：一个宇宙还是多个宇宙？
A thought-provoking panel session titled Multiverse: One Universe or Many?
2013年，世界科学节汇聚了多位科学家，包括安德烈·林德、艾伦·古斯、尼尔·图罗克和安德里亚斯·阿尔布雷希特。在这场讨论中，图罗克说：“多重宇宙无疑存在于我们的思想之中。至于它是否真实存在，对我而言是一个非常开放的问题。我想说的是，去年大型强子对撞机发现希格斯玻色子的证据，强烈地反对多重宇宙。相反，大多数理论家原本预期会出现不止一个希格斯玻色子、许多其他粒子以及大量复杂情况。然而，大型强子对撞机只发现了一个希格斯玻色子，其性质惊人地简单——这些性质表明，或许我们能够追溯希格斯场在奇点本身时期所发生的一切，它们也指向该奇点中非凡的简单性。同样，普朗克卫星显示的图样也远比一般暴胀模型所预测的要简单得多。暴胀并不真正是一个理论，而是一大批模型的集合，其中绝大多数模型已被数据排除。因此我会说，宇宙正在向我们展示其结构中非凡的简单与美。我们现在需要的是一系列原理和数学，来解释我们所看到的简单性。多重宇宙的研究方向完全错了。”341 同样，在理查德·道金斯与史蒂文·温伯格的会面中，温伯格多次表示，多重宇宙理论充其量只是一种估计。
at the World Science Festival in 2013 brought together a number of scientists, including Andrei Linde, Alan Guth, Neil Turok, and Andreas Albrecht. In this discussion, Turok said, ‘The multiverse is certainly in our minds. Whether it is in reality is for me a very open question. What I would say is that the evidence from last year from the Large Hadron Collider in discovering the Higgs boson goes strongly against the multiverse. Instead, most theorists were expecting more than one Higgs boson, lots of other particles, and lots of complications. Instead, the Large Hadron Collider found just one Higgs boson with amazingly simple properties – properties which indicate that perhaps we can trace what happened to the Higgs field all the way back to the singularity itself, and they point to extraordinary simplicity in that singularity. Likewise, the Planck satellite is showing us a far simpler pattern than what the inflationary models in general were predicting. Inflation isn’t really a theory. It is a vast collection of models. And the vast majority of those models have ruled out by the data. So I would say the universe is giving us a glimpse of extraordinary simplicity and beauty in its structure. What we need now are series of principles and mathematics which explain the simplicity we see. The multiverse is all going in the wrong direction.’341 Likewise, in Richard Dawkins’s meeting with Steven Weinberg, Weinberg said on multiple occasions that the multiverse theory is just an estimate at best.
这一问题因以下事实而更加复杂：许多物理学家承认，即便那些宇宙今天确实存在，他们也无法通过经验手段验证它们在起源之初就已存在。他们还补充说，理论物理在这一领域所能提供的，充其量只是数学理论模型，并没有任何实物证据。这清楚地表明，当无神论者被直截了当地询问多重宇宙存在的自然与经验证据时，他们完全无言以对，无法作答。保罗·戴维斯（Paul Davies）就此问题做过评论，他揭示了这一观点中的“信仰”成分：“当然，相信无限多的宇宙可能比相信无限的神更容易，但这种信念必须建立在信仰之上，而非观察之上。”342
The issue is further complicated given that many physicists admit they do not have any way of empirically verifying that those universes existed at inception, even if they indeed do exist now. They add that the most that theoretical physics can offer in this space are mathematical theoretical models only, without any material evidence. This clearly reveals that, when atheists are asked point blank about the natural and empirical evidence for the existence of the multiverse, they fall completely flat and are unable to answer. Paul Davies makes a note on this issue, as he reveals the ‘faith’ aspect of this view: ‘Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.’342
2. 如果我们仔细审视物理学家为解决微调问题而提出的、假定存在无限多宇宙的种种选择,就会发现它们建立在先入之见之上,并且是建立在其他猜测之上的猜测。暴胀理论并非科学界的共识。在名为《多重宇宙:一个宇宙还是许多宇宙?》的专题讨论中,理论先驱阿兰·古斯(Alan Guth)和多重宇宙理论的发展者安德烈·林德(Andrei Linde)参与了讨论,会上承认该理论存在诸多问题,并且无法为科学提供任何未来的发现。事实上,对于多重宇宙理论是否从一开始就准确,与会者之间存在分歧。从专家们的面部表情中,你就能察觉到这种分歧的程度。与多重宇宙理论相似的还有弦理论的问题,它同样只是猜测,是对宇宙的一种数学模型尝试,在现实中并没有任何真实证据支撑。这正是物理学界在这一理论上存在巨大分歧的原因:有人接受它,有人拒绝它,还有人至今仍未作出决定。这一问题也在该专题讨论中被提及,尼尔·图洛克(Neil Turok)说:“我会这样回答:弦理论预言存在10500个或更多不同可能宇宙的说法,是建立在非常强的近似之上的。这一点très未被证明。这些已被构造出来的宇宙——而且它们只是被部分构造出来——没有任何数学证明表明它们是合理的……我认为这一点很难反驳。但它们都不是动力学宇宙。其中每一个至少都具有一个与我们一直讨论的大爆炸奇点同样糟糕的奇点。而研究这些宇宙的人,没有一个解决了这一奇点。所以它们没有一个在数学上是说得通的。”阿尔布雷希特(Albrecht)回应道:“我想接着这个话题说。” 你有10500个东西，但在这幅图里，每一个都会独自生成一个多重宇宙，而仅仅其中一个多重宇宙就存在严重问题。拥有10500个或更多，并不能解决任何问题。问题在于，你可以有无穷多个口袋宇宙……你甚至无法把它们数清，因此也就分不清你所预测的哪一种比另一种更常见。尤其是，我觉得技术层面的核心问题在于，你究竟该如何定义概率。晚上早些时候，有人提到了拉斯维加斯式的赌博……人们用来应对这些永恒暴胀、彼此并存的多重宇宙的概率方法，你根本没法用它来经营一家赌场，它们算不上可靠的概率应用。所有人仍在拼命挣扎，试图让它行得通，可这到底是为了什么？拥有10500反而更让人困惑。
格斯承认存在他所描述的“测度问题”：“根本的问题在于，一切可能发生的事情都会发生无穷多次，这意味着，如果你想说某类事件比另一类更常见，那就很难比较它们，因为它们每一类都在无限次地发生。所以这确实是一个问题，对此我不得不同意……”343
2. If we look carefully at the choices offered by physicists that postulate an infinite number of universes to deal with the fine tuning problem, we will find that they are based on preconceived notions, as well as guesswork built on other guesswork. The idea of inflation is not a point of scientific consensus. In the panel discussion Multiverse: One Universe or Many?, in which theory pioneer Alan Guth and multiverse theory developer Andrei Linde participated, there was an admission that there are many problems with the theory, and that it is unable to offer any future discoveries in science. In fact, there was a difference of opinion on whether the multiverse theory is accurate to begin with. You could detect the scope of the difference among the panellists in their facial expressions. Similar to the theory of the multiverse is the issue of strings, which is just guesswork and an attempt at a mathematical model for the universe without any real evidence backing it up in actuality. This is why there is a wide divide in the physics community over this theory: some accept it; others reject it; others have still not decided either way. This issue was dealt with in the panel discussion, in which Neil Turok said, ‘I would answer it by saying that this claim that string theory predicts a multiverse 10500 or more different possible universes is based on very strong approximation. It’s very unproved. None of these universes that have been constructed – and they’ve only been partially constructed – there’s no mathematical proof they make sense…I think that’s very hard to disagree with. But none of them is a dynamical universe. Each one of them at the very least has a singularity as bad as the Big Bang singularity we’ve always talked about. And none of these who study these universes have resolved that singularity. So none of them make mathematical sense.’ Albrecht reacted by saying, ‘I’ll pick up on that. You have 10500 of something, but each one of these somethings is generating the multiverse on its own in this picture, and there are serious problems just with the one of those multiverses. Having 10500 or more doesn’t fix anything. And the problems are that you can have infinitely many pocket universes…you can’t even count them up, so you can’t tell what you are predicting which is more common than something else. And in particular, I feel the technical question is how you even do probabilities, so someone mentioned Las Vegas betting somewhere earlier in the evening…The way people use probabilities to cope with these multiple eternally inflating universes – you couldn’t run a casino on that, they’re not solid use of probabilities. Everyone’s still ripping, scrambling away, trying to get it to work, just for what? Having 10500 is even more confusing.’ Guth admitted there was what he described as a ‘measure problem’: ‘The basic issue is that everything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, which means that if you want to say that type of event is more common than another type of event, it’s hard to compare them if they’re each happening an infinite number of times. So that is a problem which I have to agree…’343
有一部批评弦理论的有趣著作是彼得·沃伊特（Peter Woit）的《不只是错误》（Not Even Wrong），书名之所以如此，是因为它反映了该理论所面临的不满情绪。另一本是李·斯莫林（Lee Smolin）的《物理学的麻烦》（The Trouble With Physics）。大卫·伯林斯基（David Berlinski）在其著作《魔鬼的妄想》（The Devil's Delusion）中，也对该理论提出了犀利的批评。
One interesting work that critiques string theory is the book by Peter Woit called Not Even Wrong, which is named as such since it represents the resentment this notion faces. Another book is The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. David Berlinski has a sharp critique of the theory in his book The Devil’s Delusion.
当edge.org网站每年抛出一个幽默的问题“哪一个科学观念已经到了退休的时候？”时，弗兰克·蒂普勒回答道：“现代科学开端时是什么样，现在也应当如此。我们应当坚持这一根本要求：实验验证是真正科学的标志。既然弦理论家至今未能提出任何通过实验来验证弦理论的方法，那么弦理论就应当退休，就在今天，就现在。”345
When the edge.org website put its annual humorous question: ‘What Scientific Idea is Ready For Retirement?’, Frank Tipler replied, ‘As it was in the beginning of modern science, so it should be now. We should keep the fundamental requirement that experimental confirmation is the hallmark of true science. Since string theorists have failed to propose any way to confirm string theory experimentally, string theory should be retired, today, now.’345
事实上,著名的无神论者劳伦斯·克劳斯(Lawrence Krauss)就是拒绝这一假设的人物之一。他多次对多重宇宙理论提出了尖锐的批评。他还与著名物理学家布赖恩·格林(Brian Greene)就这一主题进行过讨论。这一假说更广泛的问题在于,它常常被当作确凿的科学事实来呈现,并且已在科学界被接受。如果人们阅读通俗科普读物中关于这一话题的内容,或者观看纪录片、听公开讲座,就会注意到其中使用的措辞十分绝对,缺乏科学所要求的审慎态度。他们把自己想要传播的观点说成是不容置疑的真理,而不仅仅是理论、假设或纯粹的猜测,尽管在科学本身之中,这些观点并未被确立为定论。在辩论中,无神论科学家正是利用这一点,把他们的理论说成科学事实,仿佛这些理论已在科学界达成共识。事实是,他们之所以坚持这些估计,只是因为先入为主的意识形态偏见驱使他们既不愿接受一个超越物质的造物主,也不愿放弃其狭隘的唯物主义世界观。克利福德·朗利(Clifford Longley)说:“[人择设计论证]及其所指向的东西,其确定程度之高,在科学的任何其他领域都会被视为已成定论。若坚持相反的看法,就如同坚称莎士比亚的作品并非出自莎士比亚之手,理由是它可能是一十亿只猴子在一十亿台键盘前敲打一十亿年的产物。这也许确实可能。但科学无神论者如此绝望地抓住这样的稻草,却让有神论者精神为之一振。”346
In fact, the famous atheist Lawrence Krauss is one personality that rejects this assumption. He has offered a stinging critique of the multiverse theory on a number of occasions. He has a discussion with the famous physicist Brian Greene on this subject. The wider problem with this hypothesis is that it is presented oftentimes as conclusive scientific fact and has become accepted in scientific circles. If one reads what has been written in popular science on the topic, or information that is received via documentaries or public lectures, they will notice the unequivocal language employed that defies the required scientific nuance. They present the issues they seek to disseminate to be the gospel truth, not just theories, assumptions, or mere guesswork, even though they have not been settled as such in science itself. During debates, atheist scientists leverage this to present their theories as scientific facts, as if they have been agreed upon in science. The fact is they have clung onto these estimates only because of preconceived ideological biases that push them to refuse both accepting a supermaterial creator and leaving their narrow materialistic outlook on existence. Clifford Longley said, ‘The [anthropic-design argument] and what it points to is of such an order of certainty that in any other sphere of science, it would be regarded as settled. To insist otherwise is like insisting that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare because it might have been written by a billion monkeys sitting at a billion keyboards typing for a billion years. So it might. But the sight of scientific atheists clutching at such desperate straws has put new spring in the step of theists.’346
3. 多元宇宙理论引发的一个问题是，多元宇宙的创生本身需要某种微调。这立刻引出一个疑问：是谁调校了母宇宙，多元宇宙正是从它中诞生的？保罗·戴维斯写道：
3. One problem that the multiverse theory triggers is that the creation of the multiverse requires some fine-tuning. This immediately leads to the question: Who tuned the mother universe, from which the multiverse was born? Paul Davies writes:
多元宇宙理论无疑动摇了智能设计论的根基，但它仍未能对存在做出完整的解释。首先，必须存在某种物理机制来产生这些宇宙，并为每个宇宙分配其规律。这一过程本身需要自己的法则，即元法则。这些元法则从何而来？问题只是从宇宙的法则被上推到了多元宇宙的元法则，并没有真正解决。所有困难的根源在于，宗教与科学都诉诸某种存在于宇宙之外的主体来解释其规律有序的状态。把问题推给一位预先存在的设计者，根本算不上解释，因为这只是回避了谁设计了设计者的问题。但诉诸一大批看不见的宇宙和一套未经解释的元法则，也好不了多少。347
The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse. The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better.347
哲学家罗宾·柯林斯说:“在目前所有已经完善的关于这个宇宙生成器可能是什么的提议中——例如振荡大爆炸模型和真空涨落模型……——这个‘生成器’本身都受一套复杂的定律支配,这些定律使它能够产生宇宙。因此可以推断,如果这些定律稍有不同,这个生成器很可能就无法产生任何能够维持生命的宇宙。”348
The philosopher Robin Collins says, ‘In all currently worked out proposals for what this universe generator could be – such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models… – the “generator” itself is governed by a complex set of laws that allow it to produce universes. It stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to produce any universes that could sustain life.’348
关于通货膨胀理论——它曾被提出作为多元宇宙的一种解释——斯蒂芬·霍金说道：“问题在于，要使我们的通货膨胀理论模型成立，宇宙的初始状态必须以一种非常特殊且极不可能的方式设定。因此，传统的通货膨胀理论解决了一组问题，却又制造了另一组问题……”349
Regarding inflation theory, which has been proposed as an explanation for the multiverse, Stephen Hawking said, ‘The problem is, for our theoretical models of inflation to work, the initial state of the universe had to be set up in a very special and highly improbable way. Thus traditional inflation theory resolves one set of issues but creates another...’349
4. 这种多元宇宙思路的问题在于，它会让人在遇到无法解释的问题时，习惯性地诉诸这一答案。在某些对多元宇宙持赞同态度的物理学界尤其如此。这些学者接受了马克斯·泰格马克（Max Tegmark）等人提出的无限分裂宇宙模型，而这最终使任何可能性都成了实际发生的事情。
4. The problem associated with this multiverse thought pattern is that it conditions the mind to resort to that answer whenever an inexplicable problem transpires. This is especially the case in some physics circles that have a favourable view of the multiverse by accepting the infinitely splitting universe model as proposed by Max Tegmark and others, which ultimately renders any possibility to be occurring in actuality.
假设一个人与别人打赌。他在骰子上选定一个数字，掷出骰子，结果恰好与所选数字相符。这种情况出现的概率是六分之一。他选的数字与掷骰子的结果相同，于是人们认为这个结果是合理的，因为它又一次偶然发生了。现在设想这个过程重复了一百次，每次骰子都落在同一个数字上——那么“巧合”的论证还能成立吗？根据多元宇宙理论，这完全有可能，也一点都不奇怪。如果这个人指责掷骰者作弊，掷骰者可以反过来说自己根本没有作弊，并且可以说：“恰好我们身处这样一个宇宙，这件事本应在这里发生。”这种思路又一次把我们引向机会的巨大力量，只不过绕了更长的弯路。无论某件事的概率多么微小，它总会在多元宇宙的某一个宇宙中发生，而没有任何理由阻止那个宇宙就是我们所在的宇宙。基于此，每当我们对某件事偶然发生感到不安时，即使我们在数学上承认它如此，甚至知道它偶然发生的概率极其微小，依然应当认为它是可能的，因为按照这种观点，我们的宇宙注定要承载那个极不可能的事件。这正是多元宇宙理论的支持者所提出的观点，他们用这一理论来解释我们宇宙中任何极不可能的现象，而按照他们的说法，若没有这些现象，生命就不可能存在。接受这种形而上学观念的心态，封死了通过论证来证明安拉存在的一切途径，因为无论向他们呈现怎样关于精妙设计的证据，他们都可以用无限多元宇宙这根棍子把它挡开。 因此,既然如此,去调查宇宙中不太可能发生的事件,或从中作出推论,又有什么意义呢?需要指出的是,这个问题确实存在,并且它对整个关于神之存在的讨论都有影响。请看以下来自Dan Barker(无神论者)与Trent Horn之间辩论的片段,该辩论题为《神:至高的存在还是想象中的朋友?》:
Imagine a person has a bet with someone. He chooses a number on a dice, throws it, and it lands to match the number. There was a one-sixth probability of that occurring. The same number was chosen and the same result appeared when he threw the dice. They assumed the outcome is reasonable, as it happened by chance again. Now imagine that this process was repeated a hundred times and on every occasion, the dice landed on the same number – would the coincidence argument work anymore? In light of the multiverse theory, this should be perfectly possible and not surprising at all. If the person accuses the thrower of cheating, he can simply turn around and say he did not cheat at all. He could say, ‘It just so happens that we are in the universe where this was supposed to occur.’ This thought process leads us yet again – just in a more long-winded way – to the high powers of chance. No matter how remote the probability of something is, it would need to occur in one universe within the multiverse. There is nothing to stop that universe being our universe. Based on this, whenever we are uncomfortable with the idea that something occurred by accident, even if we believe it to be so mathematically, and even if we know of the incredibly low probability of it ever occurring by chance, it should still be considered feasibe and possible according to the notion that our universe was meant to host that improbable event. This is exactly the idea proposed by the pro-multiverse theorists, who use this theory to explain any improbable occurrence in our universe, without which life – according to them – would not have been possible. The mindset that accepts this metaphysical idea shuts down all routes to the possible demonstration of the existence of Allah , because whichever proof vis-à-vis immaculate design is presented to them, it can be batted away using the stick of the infinite multiverse. As thus, what is the point in ever investigating improbable events in our universe, or making deductions from them? Highlighting that this problem is a real issue, and that it has an impact on the entire discussion on the existence of the Divine, look at this segment from the debate between Dan Barker (atheist) and Trent Horn, titled God: Supreme Being or Imaginary Friend?:
Horn: 你能给我们举一个假设的例子，说明什么会证伪这样一个陈述吗？即“一个不符合这一模式的神存在证据：我们不知道x的解释，因此神存在”。因为你曾说我刚才提出的是“缺口之神”论证。我很想知道，什么样的证据不符合这一模式。“我们不知道我们所观察到的x的解释，因此有神。”你能举一个不对应这一点的例子吗？
Horn: Can you give us a hypothetical example of something that would falsify the statement ‘An evidence for God that does not conform to this pattern, we don’t know the explanation for x, therefore God exists’, because you said I just proposed ‘God of the gaps’ arguments. I’m curious what kind of evidence doesn’t conform to this pattern. ‘We don’t know the explanation for what we observed x, therefore God.’ Could you give us an example that does not correspond with that?
Barker: 是的。《圣经》非常明确地说，凡你们祈求的事，只要信，就必得着。《圣经》这样说，你们的信仰也是以这本书为根据的。这很清楚，“凡事”就是凡事。所以，对我来说，如果你能为某件我们根本不可能知道的事向上帝祈求，那就是证据。打个奇怪的例子：如果你向上帝祈祷，然后告诉我上帝启示你，明天12点43分16秒，一颗来自南偏西、以83°角度飞来的小行星会击中你的房子……
Horn: 我明白你的意思。你是说，我们不知道你是怎样预测那颗小行星会落在那里的，所以就是上帝。
Barker: 我不会说“所以就是上帝”；我会说你有一些很好的证据。
Barker: Yeah. The Bible is very clear that all things whatsoever you shall ask for in prayer believing, you shall receive. The Bible says that, and you faith is based on that book. That’s pretty clear – all means all. So evidence for me would be if you were to ask God for something we couldn’t possibly know. Here’s a wild example. If you were to pray to God and you told me that God told you that tomorrow at 12:43:16, an asteroid from the south-south-west at an 83° angle would strike your house… Horn: I see where you’re going. What you’re saying is that we don’t know how you predicted how that asteroid landed there, therefore God. Barker: I wouldn’t say ‘therefore God’; I would say you have some good evidence.
Barker: 为你所信奉的这位神。
Barker: For this God you believe in.
号角："但你怎么知道它不是某种我们尚未发现的自然现象呢？"
Horn: But how would you know it isn’t something natural we haven’t discovered yet?
Barker: 因为你会怎么解释呢?
Horn: 你会怎么解释呢!?我不知道!你会怎么解释呢!?
Barker: Because how would you explain it? Horn: How would you explain it!? I don’t know! How would you explain it!?
巴克：如果你要的是证据，你需要的是类似这样的东西……（片刻之后）
Barker: If you’re asking for evidence, you would need something like that… (A few moments later)
Horn: 我想我对多元宇宙有些有趣的看法。你说过它可能是无限的。
Horn: I guess I have something interesting with the multiverse. You said it could be infinite.
Barker: 不，我们只知道至少有一个。目前我们所知道的就是这些。
Horn: 好吧，因为你需要很多宇宙，对吧？不能只是十亿个，因为那样得不到巨大的数字。但如果是无限的，问题就来了。在无限的多重宇宙中，是否会存在一个宇宙，在那里你自然会预测到一颗陨石撞击？
Barker: No. We know that it is at least one. That is all we know right now. Horn: Alright, because you need a lot of universes right? It can’t just be a billion because that won’t give you huge numbers. But if it was infinite, here’s the problem. In infinite multiverse, will there be one universe where you naturally predict a meteor strike?
巴克:是的,在某个宇宙里,确实会有人被击中。
Barker: There would be a universe in which someone would get struck, that’s right.
角：这样的话，我们就无从得知这究竟是真主，还是你只是身处多元宇宙之中吗？
Horn: So there would be no way to know if it was God or if you’re just in the multiverse?
Barker：但在那个宇宙中，我会接受它作为证据。
Barker: But I would accept it as evidence in that universe.
角：但你怎么知道这是真神的安排，而不是你身处无限多元宇宙之中？
Horn: But how do you know it’s God and you’re not in the infinite multiverse?
巴克：在这种情况下，我会说我愿意把它当作上帝存在的证据，它可能是错的——不是作为证明，而是我会接受它作为那个宇宙中的证据。350
Barker: In that case, I would just say I would accept that as an evidence for God, it might be wrong – not as proof – but I would accept it as evidence in that universe.350
这场讨论揭示了问题的严重性。试想一下,如果其中某位相信无限多重宇宙、并认为人们能够设想的一切可能性都在多重宇宙中有所体现的无神论者,亲眼见证了真主的一位先知所行的一个奇迹,他会立刻反驳道:“我不知道。也许这只是一次偶然,因为我恰好身处发生这一偶然事件的那个宇宙里。”
值得注意的是,巴克尔承认——尽管受到显而易见的真理的压力,也尽管他自己的天性(fiṭrah)本应告诉他——他所提到的这些就足以说服他自己。而在我看来,他的概率计算远远大于那些宇宙常数和标准被某个外在实体设定的概率,这一事实依然存在。
大卫·伯林斯基在批评多重宇宙理论时说:“存在着电子仍然遵循某种定律的宇宙,也存在着电子不遵循定律的宇宙。在一个一切皆有可能的景观中,没有任何事物是必然的。在一个没有任何事物是必然的宇宙中,一切皆有可能。”351
This discussion reveals the scale of the problem. Imagine if one of these atheists who believe in the infinite multiverse and that all possibilities one can envisage are represented in the multiverse, and he witnessed a miracle of God that occurred at the hand of one of His Prophets. In response, he would immediately retort, ‘I don’t know. Perhaps it occurred as an accident because I was in the universe where this accident occurred.’ What was quite remarkable was that Barker admitted – in spite of pressure from self-evident truths and what his own fiṭrah would have been telling him – that what he mentioned was enough to convince himself. This is notwithstanding the fact that his probabilities – in my estimation – are numerically far more than the probabilities of those universe standards and constants being set in place by an external entity. In critiquing the multiverse theory, David Berlinski said, ‘There are universes in which the electron continues to follow some law, and those in which it does not. In a Landscape in which anything is possible, nothing is necessary. In a universe in which nothing is necessary, anything is possible.’351
5. 只要他们的主张仍建立在臆测之上,那么多元宇宙之间的差异究竟应当在哪里止步?为什么我们只限于谈论例如其常数之间的差异?为什么就不能存在物理定律的变化?为什么这种差异不能存在于那些宇宙的粒子之内?事实上,为什么不将这一过程普遍地规范化,使有关差异的全部概率范围都向争论开放?这一点实际上已被提出,例如马克斯·泰格马克(Max Tegmark)的模型,即在我们可能身处的每一个宇宙中都有我们自身的重复,并且对应于我们生命中的每一种可能性和我们所能做出的每一个选择,都存在着多个宇宙。这意味着,在这个宇宙中最好战的无神论者,在另一个宇宙中可能是穆斯林有神论者,在另一个宇宙中是基督徒,在另一个宇宙中是背弃伊斯兰教的叛教者,在另一个宇宙中是自称神性的人,在另一个宇宙中是疯狂的癫人,如此等等。这种情形与其说是现实,不如说更像一部科幻电影;实际上,它正是一部科幻电影。麻省理工学院物理学教授、宇宙暴胀理论的开创者阿兰·古斯(Alan Guth)说:“基本上任何可能发生的事情都会在某个备选宇宙中发生,这意味着在我们所知的宇宙之上叠加着另一个宇宙,在那里阿尔·戈尔是总统,猫王埃尔维斯·普雷斯利依然健在。”352
5. So long as their claim is based on guesswork, where then would the processing of the differences between the multiverse stop at? Why should we limit ourselves to, for example, the differences between their constants? Why can there not be variation in the laws of physics as well? Why can this difference not be inside the particles of those universes? In fact, why is the process not regularised across the board and the entire raft of probabilities vis-à-vis difference is opened up for debate? This has actually been proposed in, for example, the model offered by Max Tegmark, namely that there are repetitions of ourselves in each universe we can possibly be in, as well as multiple universes in accordance with each possibility in our lives and each choice we can make. This means that the most belligerent of atheists in this universe would be a Muslim theist in another universe, a Christian in another, an apostate from Islam in another, a claimant of divinity in another, a crazed madman in another, and so on. This situation resembles a sci-fi movie more than it does reality; in fact, it is exactly that. Alan Guth, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and pioneer of cosmic inflation theory, said, ‘Essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive.’352
“在单一宇宙中，生来两头的牛比生来一头的牛少见。”他在别处这样说道。“但在无限分支的多元宇宙中，‘一头牛的数量是无限的，两头牛的数量也是无限的。那么，比例会怎样呢？’”353
Elsewhere, he said, ‘In a single universe, cows born with two heads are rarer than cows born with one head’. But in an infinitely branching multiverse, ‘there are an infinite number of one-headed cows and an infinite number of two-headed cows. What happens to the ratio?’353
对此观点深感不安的保罗·戴维斯说道："即便你无需担心与一个复制的自己相遇，但仅仅是存在无限多个与你完全相同的副本，过着完全相同的生活（以及无限多个过着相似但不完全相同生活的其他副本），这一想法本身就令人深感不安。即便是泰格马克也承认，他的直觉反应是认为这一想法'奇怪且难以置信'。"354
Vexed by this idea, Paul Davies said, ‘But even if you need not fear an encounter with a duplicate you, the very notion that there could be not just one, but an infinity of identical copies of you, leading identical lives (and infinitely many others leading similar but not identical lives) is deeply unsettling. Even Tegmark admits that his gut reaction is to find the idea “strange and implausible.”’354
是什么让人看清那些沉迷于这类“假设性物理学”的人，是一些科学家已经开始认真思考这样一个问题：我们的心智是否与某种普遍的通讯工具相连，使我们通过意识生活在一个虚拟世界中？还是我们实际上在与客观实在互动？我们的状态是否就像著名美国电影《黑客帝国》所描绘的那样？
保罗·戴维斯提到，接受无限多重宇宙的一个推论是，人们将接受那些只给人以真实宇宙假象的虚构宇宙。这显然引出一个问题：我们如何确定自己所处的宇宙是真实的，而非虚构或虚拟的，其可能性有多大。
事实上，我们还可以把虚拟世界的观念推得更远，因为确实有人说，我们自身也只是虚拟的存在，我们并没有任何真实的实际存在，而是某个程序员在他/它的电脑上编程的结果，并通过他/它的电脑把我们置于这个虚拟世界之中。他/它以这样的方式编程，使我们感觉自己存在，却从不知道周围的一切并不真实。这种“立场”会让我们的存在好比青少年玩的电脑游戏《模拟人生》（The Sims）的一个进化版本，在那里，先进的文明是在卧室的舒适环境中，在电脑上建造起来的。
因此，令人颇感惊讶的是，新无神论者竟认为这类幻想比相信一位创造万物的主更为理性。尽管新无神论者并未明确宣称我们生活在类似《模拟人生》的世界里，但他们仍然无法证伪这种观点，而且实际上还认为这种如游戏般的体验与科学知识相符。对他们而言，通向这类想法的大门是敞开的。这揭示了一种巨大的危险：任何狂野的想法或幻想，只要心智能够构想出来，人就可能被其牵着走。 它也突出了人在沉溺于这类念头时所付出的极高代价——即他的人性本身。这些念头可能将一个人引入迷途，迫使他陷入无尽的诡辩，以牺牲真正的认知与知识为代价。事实上，它会把他的整个人生变成一团毫无意义的混乱，充斥着虚无主义、非理性与混乱。他生活的每一个方面都将无法摆脱这种无意义。例如，在一个虚拟世界里，伦理还有什么意义呢？一种虚拟的生活又有什么真正的价值，能够阻止一个人违背伦理呢？356 这确实是一个奇怪的主张。令人不安的是，许多无神论者在这些问题上，宁愿跳入信徒的行列，只为避免承认他们的主和造物主。当人不坚守他从自身理性本能、天生且必然的情感中所知的东西时，他无疑会在这些怀疑与幻想面前失足。这就是为什么我认为，人应当遵循灵魂中天然与固有的印记，并以此作为生活的蓝图。如果有人忽视这一蓝图，或将其撕毁，那么为此付出的代价将极为沉重——从字面上说，它将使他失去一切。关于诡辩性的问题、因果，以及它们与真理及其证据之间的联系，伊本·泰米叶给出了这样一段简短而优美的论述：“应当明白，没有任何真理或证据是不能被诡辩式的怀疑所左右的。诡辩要么源于心智的败坏，要么源于拒绝接受真理的固执。二者都没有可以固定的规则；相反，总是由灵魂中滋生的败坏幻想和对真理的顽固否认所决定。”357 他说的确是实话，。
What shines a light on these people getting carried away with this sort of ‘hypothetical physics’ behaviour is that some scientists have started to think seriously about the following question: Are we connected with our minds to a universal communication tool that allows us to live in a virtual world though our consciousness? Or are we interacting with actual objective reality? Is our state like the one described in the famous American movie The Matrix? Paul Davies mentioned that one implication of accepting the infinite multiverse is one would accept fictitious universes that give the illusion that they are actual universes. This obviously leads to the problem of how probable it is for us to ascertain that the universe that we live in is real and not fictitious or virtual.355 In fact, we can take the idea of the virtual world further, because some actually do say that we ourselves are simply virtual beings, and that we do not have any real actual existence but are rather the result of a programmer who programmed us on his/its computer, and placed us in this virtual world through his/its computer. He/It programmed us in such a way that we feel we exist without ever knowing that what is around is not real. This ‘position’ would make our existence like an evolved version of the PC game The Sims that adolescents play, where advanced civilisations are built on computers from the comfort of their bedrooms. It is therefore quite surprising to see that New Atheists believe these sorts of fantasies to be more rational than believing in a Lord Who created. Even though New Atheists do not explicitly state that we are living in a Sims like world, they nonetheless cannot falsify it and in fact consider this game-like experience to be congruent with scientific knowledge. The door for them is open to these sorts of ideas. This uncovers the great danger of getting carried away with any and every wild idea or fantasy that the mind can conjure up. It also highlights the very high price man pays – his humanity itself – when dabbling with these sorts of thoughts. Such thoughts can take a person down a rabbit hole and force him to adopt endless sophistry at the price of actual cognition and knowledge. In fact, it renders his entire life into a pointless mess of nihilism, irrationality, and chaos. No aspect of his life would ever be free from such meaninglessness. For example, ethics would have no point in a virtual world – would a virtual life possess any real value that would stop a person from violating ethics?356 It is indeed a strange proposition. What is disconcerting is that many atheists are, on these issues, prepared to jump into the believers’ category, all to save themselves from acknowledging their Lord and Creator. When man does not hold fast onto what he knows from his own rational self-instincts, and his innate and necessary feelings, he would no doubt slip up at these doubts and fantasies. This is why I consider it incumbent for a person to adhere to the instinctive and innate imprints on one’s soul, and to make that the blueprint by which one lives. If someone ignores that blueprint or tears it up, the price for such a deed would be extremely high – it will quite literally cost him everything. On the sophistic questions, causes, and their link with the truth and its evidence, Ibn Taymiyyah offers this brief yet graceful passage: ‘Realise that there is no truth or evidence that cannot be subject to sophistic doubts. Sophism is either about a corrupted mind or obstinance from accepting the truth. Neither have a rule to pin them down; rather, it would always be down to the corrupt fantasies and stubborn denials of the truth that come into the souls.’357 He spoke the truth indeed, .
这一观点提出的解释过于繁复,难以用来说明我们宇宙的构成与复杂性。这与奥卡姆剃刀原则相抵触。奥卡姆剃刀是科学研究中著名的问题解决原则,意思是不应无必要地增加实体,或者说最简单的解释通常是最好的。因此,为了解释一个宇宙而断言存在数量巨大甚至无限的宇宙,似乎是荒谬的。
有趣的是,理查德·道金斯在《上帝的妄想》一书中说:"多重宇宙在宇宙数量上可能显得极为奢侈。但如果其中每一个宇宙的基本规律都很简单,我们所假定的也并非极不可能之事。"如果如他所说,每个宇宙都确实很简单,而我们的宇宙显然是该多重宇宙的一部分,那么为了解释我们这个简单的宇宙,又何必提出多重宇宙的假说呢?原因在于,在这无限系列的宇宙中,每一个宇宙本身并不简单,而是复杂的,每一个都需要各自的解释。因此,把多重宇宙作为我们宇宙的解释,是绝对毫无意义的。尤其考虑到道金斯坚持认为这些宇宙在复杂性上并不像保罗·戴维斯等人所寻求澄清的那样,那些人关心的是产生多个宇宙的运作机制的性质,而这种机制本身也需要某种程度的微调。
此外,假设每个宇宙本身是简单的,那么能否据此断定整个多重宇宙就不复杂呢?设想有一台大型机器,它的每个组成部分都很简单。当这些部件组装成机器时,能否因为部件简单,就断言这台机器也是简单的? 设想有人声称：人这个整体，连同他全部有生命的肢体，是简单的，因为如果我们把他还原到基本要素，就可以说这些基本部分是简单的，所以人也是简单的。显然，这里存在根本性的错误。他的说法"如果宇宙中的每一个在其基本定律上都是简单的，我们仍然没有假定任何极不可能的东西"也不太说得通。这里所比较的概率究竟是什么范围？他怎么能知道无限多重宇宙理论与单一宇宙相比有多大可能性？这些都是对多重宇宙理论及其能否解释宇宙精妙构造与完美设计现象的部分反对意见。对此议题感兴趣的人，应当参阅以下书籍以进一步了解这些反对意见：《金发姑娘之谜》（The Goldilocks Enigma）、《大爆炸，大上帝：一个适合生命的宇宙？》（Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life?）、《魔鬼的妄想》（The Devil's Delusion）、《上帝的掘墓人》（God's Undertaker）、《上帝与设计》（God and Design）、《宇宙中设计的科学与证据》（Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe）等。
6. This idea offers an overly difficult solution in interpreting the cause of composition and complexity in our universe. This contradicts Occam’s Razor, the famous scientific problem solving concept, which means that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, or that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. It would therefore seem to be absurd to claim a huge or infinite number of universes to explain one universe. What is interesting is that in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says, ‘The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable.’358 If each universe is really simple as he says, and given that our universe is obviously part of that multiverse, then what was the need to claim the multiverse just to explain our simple universe? This is because each universe in the infinite series of universes would not be simple, but rather complex. Each would require its own explanation. Therefore, to offer the multiverse as an explanation for our universe is absolutely pointless. This is especially given Dawkins’s insistence that they are not complex in the way that led Paul Davies and others to seek a clarification on the nature of the operation that results in the creation of multiple universes, which would also be in need of some degree of fine-tuning. In addition, let us assume that each universe in its own right is simple – would it then be correct to say that the multiverse in toto is not complex? Imagine there is a large machine. Each constituent part of the machine is simple. When these parts are put together to form the machine, would it be proper to claim that because these parts are simple, the machine is also simple? Imagine if a person claimed that man with all his living limbs is simple, because if we reduce him to his basic elements, we can say that these basic parts are simple, and therefore man is simple. It is clear that there is a fundamental error here. Obviously, his statement, ‘if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable’ does not make much sense. What exactly is the scope of probability being compared to here? How can he know how probable the infinite multiverse theory is compared to the single universe? These are some of the objections to the multiverse theory and its suitability in explaining the phenomenon of mastery and consummate construction of the universe. Enthusiasts of this issue should avail themselves of the following books in order to learn further objections: The Goldilocks Enigma, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life?, The Devil’s Delusion, God’s Undertaker, God and Design, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, and others.